But how does this actually happen? In a study conducted at Yale, graduate students were asked to rate their understanding of everyday devices, including toilets, zippers, and cylinder locks. They were then asked to write detailed, step-by-step explanations of how the devices work, and to rate their understanding again.
Apparently, the effort revealed to the students their own ignorance, because their self-assessments dropped.
Toilets, it turns out, are more complicated than they appear. People believe that they know way more than they actually do. What allows us to persist in this belief is other people. In the case of my toilet, someone else designed it so that I can operate it easily. This is something humans are very good at. This borderlessness, or, if you prefer, confusion, is also crucial to what we consider progress.
When it comes to new technologies, incomplete understanding is empowering. Where it gets us into trouble, according to Sloman and Fernbach, is in the political domain. Sloman and Fernbach cite a survey conducted in , not long after Russia annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea.
Respondents were asked how they thought the U. The farther off base they were about the geography, the more likely they were to favor military intervention. Surveys on many other issues have yielded similarly dismaying results. And here our dependence on other minds reinforces the problem. If your position on, say, the Affordable Care Act is baseless and I rely on it, then my opinion is also baseless. When I talk to Tom and he decides he agrees with me, his opinion is also baseless, but now that the three of us concur we feel that much more smug about our views.
If we all now dismiss as unconvincing any information that contradicts our opinion, you get, well, the Trump Administration. The two have performed their own version of the toilet experiment, substituting public policy for household gadgets. In a study conducted in , they asked people for their stance on questions like: Should there be a single-payer health-care system?
Or merit-based pay for teachers? Participants were asked to rate their positions depending on how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the proposals. Next, they were instructed to explain, in as much detail as they could, the impacts of implementing each one. Most people at this point ran into trouble. Asked once again to rate their views, they ratcheted down the intensity, so that they either agreed or disagreed less vehemently. Sloman and Fernbach see in this result a little candle for a dark world.
And this, it could be argued, is why the system has proved so successful. At any given moment, a field may be dominated by squabbles, but, in the end, the methodology prevails. Science moves forward, even as we remain stuck in place. Their concern is with those persistent beliefs which are not just demonstrably false but also potentially deadly, like the conviction that vaccines are hazardous. This may sound obvious. What do you really want from this argument? Do you want the other person to just understand your point of view?
Or are you seeking a tangible result? Spend time thinking about how to present your argument. Body language, choice of words and manner of speaking all affect how your argument will come across. Listen carefully to what the other person is saying. Watch their body language, listen for the meaning behind their words.
Aim for listening for 75 percent of the conversation and giving your own arguments 25 percent. This is often where a lot of arguments, and discussions for that matter, veer off course. Think carefully about what arguments the other person will listen to.
What are their preconceptions? Which kinds of arguments do they find convincing. There are three main ways to respond to an argument: 1 challenge the facts the other person is using; 2 challenge the conclusions they draw from those facts; and 3 accept the point, but argue the weighting of that point i.
Arguments are not always as good as they first appear. Keep alert for distraction techniques such as personal attacks and red herrings. Look out for concealed questions and false choices.
Dec 09, AM. Tim books view quotes. Dec 04, PM. Abdul 1, books view quotes. Nov 22, AM. Dana 1, books view quotes. Sherri books view quotes. Nov 17, PM. Marco 2, books view quotes. Nov 15, PM. Caleb 1, books view quotes. Nov 15, AM. Muhammad 1, books view quotes. Nov 14, AM. June 88 books view quotes. Oct 30, AM. Sharon books view quotes.
Oct 26, PM. Valerie 64 books view quotes. Oct 24, PM. Mona 7, books view quotes. Oct 24, AM. Paige books view quotes. Cathie books view quotes. Oct 23, PM. Todd 3 books view quotes.
Oct 21, AM. Mark 18 books view quotes. Jun 14, PM. Parvinder books view quotes. Apr 04, AM. Apr 01, PM. Yassine books view quotes. Jan 02, AM. Lewis 0 books view quotes. Dec 16, PM. Rick 1 book view quotes. Oct 05, PM. Laurie 77 books view quotes. Sep 30, AM. Shirley 0 books view quotes.
Sep 28, PM. Beth 2, books view quotes. Sep 28, AM. Mark 0 books view quotes. Sep 27, PM. Randal 1, books view quotes. Aug 05, PM. Bruce 1, books view quotes.
0コメント